Strict Proof Of Cruelty Not Required To Claim Maintenance U/S 125 CrPC: Allahabad High Court
The Court also said that a wife cannot be denied maintenance merely because her parents are supporting her during distress.
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) are summary in nature and courts must not demand the strict standard of proof required in criminal prosecutions or contested matrimonial trials to determine maintenance.
Setting aside a Family Court order that completely denied maintenance to a wife and granted an inadequate amount to her children, the Court emphasized that an able-bodied husband—including a retired military person—cannot minimize or suppress his income to escape his statutory liability, nor can a wife be denied financial sustenance merely because her parents support her during distress.
The Bench of Justice Garima Prashad held, "In proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to insist upon strict proof of cruelty as would be necessary in a criminal prosecution or in a contested matrimonial cause. The scope of enquiry is limited. The Court has to see whether the wife has a reasonable ground to live separately and whether the husband, despite having means, has neglected or refused to maintain her. The standard is not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Nor can the Court convert proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. into a trial of each allegation and counter-allegation relating to matrimonial misconduct."
Advocate Dhirendra Kumar Agrahari appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate Ambleshwar Pandey appeared for the Opposite Party.
Brief Facts
The revisionists and her two minor children preferred a criminal revision challenging the judgment and order of the Family Court, which rejected the wife's claim for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) and had awarded a meagre maintenance of only ₹3,000/- per month each to the two minor children. The marriage between the Petitioner and the opposite party, a retired Army personnel, was solemnized according to Hindu rites and customs, and the paternity of the two children was never disputed. The wife and children were residing separately at her parental home following serious matrimonial discord, and the opposite party had completely stopped paying any maintenance after his retirement from the Indian Army.
Contentions of the Parties
It was contended by the Revisionist that the impugned judgment suffered from patent illegality and perversity as the Family Court treated the summary proceedings like a full-fledged matrimonial trial on cruelty and adultery. It was submitted that the Family Court erroneously concluded that the wife had no sufficient reason to live separately, despite itself recording that the opposite party had failed to pay any maintenance after his retirement. It was further urged that the quantum of maintenance awarded to the minor school-going children was wholly inadequate, unrealistic, and contrary to the settled principles of law.
Per contra, the Opposite Party contended that the Family Court recorded pure findings of fact based on the evidence on record, which did not warrant any interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It was submitted that the wife failed to establish specific instances of cruelty, dowry demand, or the alleged second marriage of the husband to justify her separate residence. It was further urged that the opposite party was surviving primarily on a limited pension and that the quantum awarded by the Family Court was reasonable given his financial capacity.
Observations and Findings of the Court
The High Court observed that the Family Court committed a manifest error by applying a strict standard of proof regarding cruelty and matrimonial misconduct, noting that proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are summary in nature and meant to prevent destitution.
It was held that serious matrimonial discord, the fact that the husband had filed for divorce, and his clear admission that he had not paid a single penny since late 2020, were more than sufficient to show that the wife had justifiable grounds to reside separately and was facing willful neglect.
The Court observed that the unproved allegations of adultery levelled by the husband amounted to mere character assassination and could not be used to deny maintenance under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. since there was no evidence that the wife was "living in adultery."
It was observed that the father's income or support during distress could not be treated as the independent income of the wife, nor could it absolve the able-bodied husband of his statutory and legal obligation to maintain his family.
"It is also pertinent that the opposite party is a retired Army personnel. Though medical papers regarding anxiety and depressive disorder were filed, no material was brought on record to establish complete incapacity or inability to engage in any supplementary gainful activity. The law is well settled that an able-bodied husband cannot avoid his statutory obligation to maintain his wife and children merely by minimizing or suppressing his income", the Court observed.
The Court found that the sum of ₹3,000/- per month for each school-going child was thoroughly inadequate to meet the rising costs of food, clothing, education, and medical needs, and failed the test of allowing the dependents to live with basic dignity.
Consequently, the High Court set aside the perverse findings of the Family Court, allowed the revision, and enhanced the maintenance to ₹5,000/- per month for the wife and ₹4,000/- per month each for the two minor children, balancing the husband's regular pension with the legitimate needs of his dependents.
Cause Title: XXX and Ors. v. State of UP and Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:127674]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate Dhirendra Kumar Agrahari
Opposite Party: Advocates Ambleshwar Pandey, Javeriya Kazmi, Government Advocate Anuj Srivastava
Click here to read/download the Judgment